Was Peter really fishing naked?

This past Sunday our Gospel text was John 21:1-19. In the middle of a lot of interesting theological stuff, there's a rather distracting line: "When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped into the sea." (New Revised Standard Version

Afterward a fairly brave parishioner asked, "Was he really naked?"

Good question, as I can't imagine it helpful to risk one's bait & tackle among the bait and tackle. Or in this case, gaffs & nets.

Sometimes looking to other translations and how they phrased things can be helpful: 

• "He wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water." ~New International Version
• "When Simon heard that it was the Lord, he put on the clothes that he had taken off while he was working. Then he jumped into the water." ~Contemporary English Bible
• "When Simon Peter realized that it was the Master, he threw on some clothes, for he was stripped for work, and dove into the sea." ~The Message, a paraphrase

They all provide the general sense that Peter wasn't wearing much and then pulled on some garment before jumping into the water. It's not that these translations are trying to be more discrete than the NRSV in describing Peter's state of dress (or lack there of). It's not that the NRSV got it wrong. It's the fact that translating involves making choices and trying to provide clarity. 

Raymond Brown, who wrote The Anchor Bible commentary on this section of John, circa 1970 (hey, it's what's at hand), provides some helpful information. He shares that the Greek word 'gymnos' can be translated as either 'naked' or 'lightly clad'. So it's probable, particularly given cultural custom as well as practicality, that Peter wasn't naked-naked, but wearing something akin to a loincloth.

Brown goes into a lengthy reflection on the oddness of Peter putting on clothes to then jump into the water. Perhaps like me, you remember being taught that water-soaked clothes are heavy and weigh one down. If one's boat/canoe/whatever tips over, it's best to shed those heavy clothes before swimming any distance.

The theories Brown reviewed boiled down to the idea that Peter had another garment on that would still qualify as 'lightly clad' and then he tucked up the garment, since the word "diazonnynai" can mean 'to put on clothes' as well as 'to tuck up into the cincture' (belt).

To have a better picture of what 'tucking up' means, imagine having on the long robe-like garments common to the time. If you took the hem of the backside of the garment, pulled it forward so it went around and over the front side, then tucked it into the belt, that would be 'tucking up'. It would keep the robe from tangling in one's legs. (Or at least this is my best guess for how tucking up would work.)
 
Personally, I think Peter's actions are meant to be odd and not due to the writer of John being less than clear. It's humorous that poor Peter is so frazzled that he puts on clothes before jumping in. Perhaps the main reason he was stripped down to the basics was to keep his clothes dry and free from the slime and smell of fish. So what does he do? Soaks his whole self in wet, fishy-smelling water because he can't wait an extra minute to greet Jesus. (That must of been a fun hug for Jesus!)

Peter's actions remind me of a story. One day Robert Redford entered a small town Montana ice cream shop. The woman who was already at the counter wanted to be respectful of Mr. Redford by not making a fuss, even though he made her twitterpatted. All was going well until she was given her ice cream cone and her change. She held onto her change and dropped her ice cream cone into her purse.

Like Peter, this fan of Redford's was so dazzled and distracted that she didn't even know what she's doing. Which is utterly adorbs to me.

So the next time you have the option of staying respectful or being a bit foolish for the sake of the Gospel, remember dripping wet Peter and go for it.